Bye bye, Britain

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

They're criminals - they broke the law, and Parliament makes the law.

That hardly feels like "dictatorship" unless you already believe that the UK is a legally corrupt state - i.e. that the people in prison should not be there because the law is unjust.

---

And if juries feel the law is unjust, they're free to ignore any compulsion to convict. It takes just 3 dissenters, and there is no conviction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

They're criminals - they broke the law, and Parliament makes the law.

That hardly feels like "dictatorship" unless you already believe that the UK is a legally corrupt state - i.e. that the people in prison should not be there because the law is unjust.

---

Politicians have enough control over who gets to vote without giving them the ability to remove a franchise.

If you have the ability to remove the vote then your playing with fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

They're criminals - they broke the law, and Parliament makes the law.

---

Here felons lose both their right to vote and to bear arms. For life. Strangely enough, they are still allowed to run for office even from prison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Politicians have enough control over who gets to vote without giving them the ability to remove a franchise.

If you have the ability to remove the vote then your playing with fire.

---

Voters, if they are motivated enough, have enough control over their votes to stymie any attempts at control by politicians. Post-1997 elections have proved that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Politicians have enough control over who gets to vote without giving them the ability to remove a franchise.

If you have the ability to remove the vote then your playing with fire.

---

OK - so that sounds like a "yes" to my question. That being the case, the UK has bigger problems than the rights of prisoners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

OK - so that sounds like a "yes" to my question. That being the case, the UK has bigger problems than the rights of prisoners.

---

Britain has bigger problems than the rights of British citizens?

Your prime minister seems to agree with that....

Honestly I don't get what is such a big deal about prisoners not having the vote...

They are incarcerated because they are being punished for crimes against their fellow citizens and part of that punishment is a suspension of their rights until they are released...

I can see the problems with removing their rights permanently - but temporarily while serving their sentence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sir Moody

Honestly I don't get what is such a big deal about prisoners not having the vote...

They are incarcerated because they are being punished for crimes against their fellow citizens and part of that punishment is a suspension of their rights until they are released...

I can see the problems with removing their rights permanently - but temporarily while serving their sentence?

---

The strength of democracy is that it draws on the experience, insights and abilities of all citizens. This is used for two main purposes. Firstly, to determine the most effective way of going forward in accordance with the majority of the affected. Secondly, to reduce tensions and conflict in society by enabling all voices to be heard.

Removing elements of society from the vote undermines both of those. Especially the last one, since it can be reasonably assumed that prisoners are more likely than the rest of society to be in conflict with established society. Thus, it is extra important that their concerns are heard.

The reasoning for taking their vote away is rubbish at best, with little more than different variations of "politicians will enable crime" and other such fearmongering nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The strength of democracy is that it draws on the experience, insights and abilities of all citizens. This is used for two main purposes. Firstly, to determine the most effective way of going forward in accordance with the majority of the affected. Secondly, to reduce tensions and conflict in society by enabling all voices to be heard.

---

All citizens? No. In fact, never. Prisoners don't get to vote, and there's nothing wrong with that. Kids don't get to vote either. Not everyone's voice is equally valuable in every situation.

Quote:

---

Removing elements of society from the vote undermines both of those. Especially the last one, since it can be reasonably assumed that prisoners are more likely than the rest of society to be in conflict with established society. Thus, it is extra important that their concerns are heard.

---

Ex-cons are supposed to adapt to the society, not the other way around. If an ex-con goes on to re-offend because he's been disenfranchised, then clearly he deserves to go back to prison.

Quote:

---

The reasoning for taking their vote away is rubbish at best, with little more than different variations of "politicians will enable crime" and other such fearmongering nonsense.

---

The reason for taking their vote away is punitive. Not that their vote would have made any difference anyway, but it's just another way of reminding them that they screwed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rvg

Ex-cons are supposed to adapt to the society, not the other way around.

---

I think you have to be a conservative to be able to misunderstand things so completely. Hearing the voices of the prisoners(or any other group for that matter), does the opposite of this. It adapts the prisoner to society, it doesn't adapt society to the prisoner.

If you fail to understand this, I see very little point further discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I think you have to be a conservative to be able to misunderstand things so completely. Hearing the voices of the prisoners(or any other group for that matter), does the opposite of this. It adapts the prisoner to society, it doesn't adapt society to the prisoner.

If you fail to understand this, I see very little point further discussion.

---

This exchange is, on some level, a differend (sorry to go all Lyotardian on ya!).

Both of you are invoking utterly different value frameworks that are at odds over this instance.

Framework One: All persons who are not mentally unsound/undeveloped (due to illness or youthfulness) should have a voice in self governance. In this framework, a person's criminality is dealt with through incarceration/rehabilitation but their right to a "voice" should not be stifled -- their opinion is of no lesser worth than before they committed and were caught in committing a crime.

Framework Two: Rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. The franchise is the ultimate right/privilege of citizenship in a community. Persons who have demonstrably acted against the greater good -- failing to meet their responsibilities -- have thereby demonstrated that they cannot discharge responsibilities correctly, so they should not be afforded the privilege of the franchise until they have atoned and demonstrated their willingness to accept responsibility.

Neither of these frameworks is without value, but on this issue at least they can easily "speak past" one another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I think you have to be a conservative to be able to misunderstand things so completely. Hearing the voices of the prisoners(or any other group for that matter), does the opposite of this. It adapts the prisoner to society, it doesn't adapt society to the prisoner.

If you fail to understand this, I see very little point further discussion.

---

I suppose Britain tends towards conservatism and the approval of the community, rather than building on grand principles. Conviction is done by the community, and once you're convicted, few outsiders care about your theoretical well being in order to uphold some high principle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

Neither of these frameworks is without value, but on this issue at least they can easily "speak past" one another.

---

Indeed, and as such I don't see any point in having a "wall of nonsense"-discussion where neither of us really engage with the arguments of the other, which is why I said I didn't have much interest in discussing it further.

I do realize it may have come off as more cross than I intended it to be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I suppose Britain tends towards conservatism and the approval of the community, rather than building on grand principles. Conviction is done by the community, and once you're convicted, few outsiders care about your theoretical well being in order to uphold some high principle.

---

It is not the "right of the individual"(the prisoner) I care about. I care about the larger community. Why on earth should a pinko-commie like myself care about the rights of an individual? Lenin focused on class and state, nothing else!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It is not the "right of the individual"(the prisoner) I care about. I care about the larger community. Why on earth should a pinko-commie like myself care about the rights of an individual? Lenin focused on class and state, nothing else!

---

In which case, once the community has passed its verdict, why should the prisoner have a voice in how the community conducts its affairs? If they want a voice, let them air it after they're out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Britain has bigger problems than the rights of British citizens?

Your prime minister seems to agree with that....

---

Her her

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

I suppose Britain tends towards conservatism and the approval of the community, rather than building on grand principles. Conviction is done by the community, and once you're convicted, few outsiders care about your theoretical well being in order to uphold some high principle.

---

This is the kind of thing that makes us sound despotic - there is a principle at work here - and it's a very important one. Namely, that those who break the law should not have a voice in the making of the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Indeed, and as such I don't see any point in having a "wall of nonsense"-discussion where neither of us really engage with the arguments of the other, which is why I said I didn't have much interest in discussing it further.

I do realize it may have come off as more cross than I intended it to be.

It is not the "right of the individual"(the prisoner) I care about. I care about the larger community. Why on earth should a pinko-commie like myself care about the rights of an individual? Lenin focused on class and state, nothing else!

---

The Norwegian model appears to largely work for Norway at the moment - but it is predicated on a small population and relatively high homogeneity. The population of Norway is roughly 70% of the population of London, spread over a much wider area. That means smaller communities where you're more likely to know people, and hence the pressure of offenders to reform within their commies much higher. Added to that, homogeneity means that the reaction of felons will be similar across the country AND you have stronger communities which apply pressure on the individual to reform.

A few Norwegian expats I have met have highlighted the pressure to conform as a reason for leaving the country - which tells you how strong it is. You get similar responses from Swedish and French expats too.

Now - after hundreds of years of immigration, especially over the last 150 years,the UK is both densely populated and heterogeneous. Communal pressure to conform to national laws is relatively weak, and in some instances whole communities willfully uncooperative with the national government - up to the point of waging sustained terror campaigns in order to force central government to accede to their demands.

In our society, the rule of Law is NOT vested in the community as it is in Norway, it is vested in the national government which has to manage competing demands from antagonistic factions. This being so, the government cannot allow those who break the law to vote. Consider - when a few hundred or a thousand prisoners are incarcerated in a city ward, their votes could determine who is elected to the local Council. The prisoners are there to be punished by they could potentially disenfranchise the law abiding citizens who live in the ward.

This may not have a practically adverse affect on those people, but that does not make the situation less repugnant to our democracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

And you wonder why we have so much trouble getting a consistent rule of law in America? I'll be quoting your post liberally the next time we have a gun debate.

---

I don't actually believe America is "governable" in the technical sense - it holds together for the moment but I keep waiting for it to fly apart in another Civil War.

My issue with the gun debate isn't the difficulty in implementing laws - same with your healthcare system - I get that. What I don't get is the opinion of the average American *about* Guns and healthcare - that's what I think is nuts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

This is the kind of thing that makes us sound despotic - there is a principle at work here - and it's a very important one. Namely, that those who break the law should not have a voice in the making of the law.

---

My point was that, whatever the scare stories about corrupt governments dictating politicised law and so on, people are in prison after a trial by jury. Juries are free to disregard the law if they feel it is unjust, and it takes just 3 out of 12 to make a conviction impossible. If there are problems with the justice system, it lies not with the political process, but with the police who provide the evidence. The vote has nothing to do with the fair representation of the convicted; the community has already spoken, in sending them to prison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

In which case, once the community has passed its verdict, why should the prisoner have a voice in how the community conducts its affairs? If they want a voice, let them air it after they're out.

---

Again: I argue for prisoner votes because it is beneficial for society that they vote(discounting the fact that they won't anyway). I do not argue on the grounds of any benefit/right/whathaveyou on behalf of the prisoner.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In our society, the rule of Law is NOT vested in the community as it is in Norway, it is vested in the national government which has to manage competing demands from antagonistic factions. This being so, the government cannot allow those who break the law to vote. Consider - when a few hundred or a thousand prisoners are incarcerated in a city ward, their votes could determine who is elected to the local Council. The prisoners are there to be punished by they could potentially disenfranchise the law abiding citizens who live in the ward.

---

I'd say your voting structure is a valid counter-argument*, as having inmates vote in the local elections where the prison is situated could create havoc. The solution is extremely simple, though: have the prisoner stay registered in the same district they were registered in prior to imprisonment.

*I won't touch the hetero/homo and density arguments....

If another civil war was needed to make a congress that was actually productive, people would line up for miles to vote on which state to attack first.

Kewl, a calculation of Capital Economics, certainly not the least, says leaving the EU is a smashing good idea for the Netherlands. Quality newspapers and state-media couldn't wait to discredit Capital Economics (it isn't even out yet), but they are no small fry. Up to 10% of growth without having to deal with a Flemisf ferrest who looks like an owl who fell out of his tree, a German booksalesman and his Portugese waiter? Gimme. Not to mention that ugly chimpette Ashton and that Swedish hippie Maelstrøm. Yes I wrote that wrong on purpose.

Fragony has two choices:

a) make some completely unsubstantiated claims about the EU

b) provide any evidence for what he says

what will he choose?


Apparently the article can be downloaded as a pdf if anyone wants to read it:

https://www.capitaleconomics.com/hig...ean-union.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

Fragony has two choices:

a) make some completely unsubstantiated claims about the EU

b) provide any evidence for what he says

what will he choose?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Apparently the article can be downloaded as a pdf if anyone wants to read it:

https://www.capitaleconomics.com/hig...ean-union.html

---

Haven't read it yet. But europhiles are screaming the usual nonense, it just came out so they haven't read it either. But the usual fearmonging 'WE NEED TEH EUROPEAN MARKUT!!!'. Yeah true, but it's a falafy, we don't need the Brussels to trade with EUrope. Rhetorical trick. Tell me, how are you going to build stuff if you will suffer a 30/40% access to materials? The Netherlands is also the biggest food exporternin the world, second only to the US (last year's numbers, hear France is now #2). If you expand your harbours the waterways will have to be deeper. Who are you going to call for that? Exactly, us. Waste of money no. As TA pointed out earlier, it will take decades before you can compete with us, and it will cost billions and billions (TA didn't say the latter but it's pretty obvious it will)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

The Netherlands is also the biggest food exporternin the world, second only to the US

---

Wat?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Wat?

---

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top...rters-map.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Haven't read it yet. But europhiles are screaming the usual nonense, it just came out so they haven't read it either. But the usual fearmonging 'WE NEED TEH EUROPEAN MARKUT!!!'. Yeah true, but it's a falafy, we don't need the Brussels to trade with EUrope. Rhetorical trick. Tell me, how are you going to build stuff if you will suffer a 30/40% access to materials? The Netherlands is also the biggest food exporternin the world, second only to the US (last year's numbers, hear France is now #2). If you expand your harbours the waterways will have to be deeper. Who are you going to call for that? Exactly, us. Waste of money no. As TA pointed out earlier, it will take decades before you can compete with us, and it will cost billions and billions (TA didn't say the latter but it's pretty obvious it will)

---

I'm not sure who you are arguing with and why, it just bothers me because you quoted me first.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

http://www.mapsofworld.com/world-top...rters-map.html

---

And this map explains how you can be the largest as well as the second largest at the same time?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

And this map explains how you can be the largest as well as the second largest at the same time?

---

I don't do reading maps.
Can't help you.

I just saw that the table confirms what Fragony says about the Netherlands being third now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Husar

I don't do reading maps.
Can't help you.

I just saw that the table confirms what Fragony says about the Netherlands being third now.

---

Fragony stated that "The Netherlands is the largest, but the US is larger"... Conflicting terms, and I'm being a nazi ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

Which is, as you should have guessed: rather a lot. Oil may make you hypothetically very rich but there's not an awful lot of jobs in actually getting the oil out (though granted there are not that many Scots either). Fishing alone is a bigger source of employment in Norway, IIRC.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Depends on how it's done. If all you do is pump up the oil, then no, there's not a lot of jobs coming from that. If you establish an oil industry as well(ie. making platforms and such), then there's a lot of jobs.

---

Even if you don't have yards building platforms - you still need depots for the oil/gas and perhaps refineries.
You need rotation crews on all 24/7 installations. With 2 weeks on and 4 weeks off you need 3 people for every position. You separate operation and function i.e drilling.
You need logistics - equipment from and to installations (land, sea) and depots for this (ship yards to build rugged north sea ships - lorries you import from sweden).
You need maintenance - installations on-shore for repairing machinery and pipe tools, inspection, modifications (stuff wear out quickly in the north sea). Extreme conditions and high operation levels (stuff shouldn't break down) demands high intervals on preventive maintenance.
You might need equipment manufacturers - If you are on a technology edge - innovation and manufacturing "needs" to be close at hand.
Least but not last - a bloated bureaucratic organisation to run all this - with heavy back end IT solutions which needs - maintenance, support, modifications etc (could be outsourced to India, but you still need locals with industry understanding).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Fragony stated that "The Netherlands is the largest, but the US is larger"... Conflicting terms, and I'm being a nazi ~;)

---

second only to, no contradiction, that means we are second.

*sigh* we really are a vestigial nation, we cant even stay the topic of a thread for 100 posts.